Sustainability Communities Initiative Programs

On July 23, 2016, we discontinued our forums. We ask our members to please join us in our new community site, The Hartmann Report. Please note that you will have to register a new account on The Hartmann Report.

re:

by Brookesmith

Aug. 15, 2012 7:04 am

Stanley Kurtz's new book, entitled Spreading the Wealth: How Obama is Robbing the Suburbs to Pay for the Cities, warns that Obama, driven by a community organizer's disdain for "white flight" from poor urban neighborhoods to suburbia, has aligned with like-minded community organizers -- e.g., Mike Kruglik and Kruglik's organization "Building One America" -- in a move to redistribute wealth from the suburbs to the inner city.

Obama is a longtime supporter of "regionalism," the idea that the suburbs should be folded into the cities, merging schools, housing, transportation, and above all taxation. To this end, the president has already put programs in place designed to push the country toward a sweeping social transformation in a possible second term. The goal: income equalization via a massive redistribution of suburban tax money to the cities.

re: Sustainability Communities Initiative Programs

re: Sustainability Communities Initiative Programs

by polycarp2

Aug. 15, 2012 7:54 am

Probably instead of re-vitalizing our inner-cities, we should just set fire to them. It's cheaper. A match costs less than a penney.

The displaced inner-city dwellers can set up tents on the lawns of suburbia. When the suburbanites flee and establish new suburbs, decent housing, proper school buildings and the like will again be available...and the tents can be done away with.

Not a penney in taxes to pay for any of it. The $650 trillion in global derivative bets needn't be touched.

In reality, wealth re-distribution merely takes money withdrawn from the economy and thrown into financial paper, and places it back into the economy so that it can function. It's done with taxation. It maintains Say's Law which in a nutshell states that everything that is produced within an economy can be bought...unless financial extractions from the economy prevent it.

I often hear the phrase, "I know better what to do with my money than government does". Often, that's true...so some government taxation to channel wealth back into the economy should probably be in the form of checks to its citizens...through a guaranteed minimal income. Households know what they need. Government doesn't. Some things governments knows, and households don't...like what new flu vaccine has to be developed. The Center for Disease Control keeps tabs on things like that. Households don't. It's a balancing act.

Adhering to a basic law of economics, Say's Law, used to be preferred over periodic meltdowns. Now meltdowns are the policy of choice.There are many ways to adhere to Say's Law under our system, and they all involve wealth re-distribution and/or caps on incomes through taxation. Most suburbanites aren't involved in that, unless, of course, they are in the habit of receiving billion dollar bonuses or multi-million dollar compensation packages.

The alternative is always a national or international economic meltdown. Probably World War III isn't an option to get the globe out of this one.

re: Sustainability Communities Initiative Programs

by douglaslee

Aug. 15, 2012 10:51 am

**The displaced inner-city dwellers can set up tents on the lawns of suburbia. When the suburbanites flee and establish new suburbs, decent housing, proper school buildings and the like will again be available...and the tents can be done away with.**

Poly, I think the suburbanites will reclaim urban when they flee, under gentrification schtick. SOHO redux.

re: Sustainability Communities Initiative Programs

Probably instead of re-vitalizing our inner-cities, we should just set fire to them. It's cheaper. A match costs less than a penney.

The displaced inner-city dwellers can set up tents on the lawns of suburbia. When the suburbanites flee and establish new suburbs, decent housing, proper school buildings and the like will again be available...and the tents can be done away with.

Not a penney in taxes to pay for any of it. The $650 trillion in global derivative bets needn't be touched.

In reality, wealth re-distribution merely takes money withdrawn from the economy and thrown into financial paper, and places it back into the economy so that it can function. It's done with taxation. It maintains Say's Law which in a nutshell states that everything that is produced within an economy can be bought...unless financial extractions from the economy prevent it.

I often hear the phrase, "I know better what to do with my money than government does". Often, that's true...so some government taxation to channel wealth back into the economy should probably be in the form of checks to its citizens...through a guaranteed minimal income. Households know what they need. Government doesn't. Some things governments knows, and households don't...like what new flu vaccine has to be developed. The Center for Disease Control keeps tabs on things like that. Households don't. It's a balancing act.

Adhering to a basic law of economics, Say's Law, used to be preferred over periodic meltdowns. Now meltdowns are the policy of choice.There are many ways to adhere to Say's Law under our system, and they all involve wealth re-distribution and/or caps on incomes through taxation. Most suburbanites aren't involved in that, unless, of course, they are in the habit of receiving billion dollar bonuses or multi-million dollar compensation packages.

The alternative is always a national or international economic meltdown. Probably World War III isn't an option to get the globe out of this one.

Retired Monk - 'Ideology is a disease"

If I remember correctly say's law states that products are purchased with other products. So in order to keep the business or household running you have to immediately spend every dime you make on more products. This will keep the economy going only allowing it to crash when people save money. Than the system will crash prices will fall and people will start purchasing products again.

That being said all pensions, retirement accounts and social programs like SSI are bad and must be spent immediately on goods and services.

re: Sustainability Communities Initiative Programs

People of america to work more for themselves and less for the government. You do this by cutting the federal government back down to a reasonable size, turning the power back over to the people and the states. This will fix all of the problems the U.S. is currently facing by allowing localities to do what is best for them not what the federal government thinks is best.for them.

re: Sustainability Communities Initiative Programs

People of america to work more for themselves and less for the government. You do this by cutting the federal government back down to a reasonable size, turning the power back over to the people and the states. This will fix all of the problems the U.S. is currently facing by allowing localities to do what is best for them not what the federal government thinks is best.for them.

You don't honestly believe that Mitt Romney will do anything like that. Mitt Romney is going to take from the People in both suburban and urban communities and give all of that money to corporations, because "corporations are people, my friend." Corporations need to eat, too, according to Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney's only intention is to screw everyone to get himself and his business partners ahead, because that is all the business experience that he has.

re: Sustainability Communities Initiative Programs

People of america to work more for themselves and less for the government. You do this by cutting the federal government back down to a reasonable size, turning the power back over to the people and the states. This will fix all of the problems the U.S. is currently facing by allowing localities to do what is best for them not what the federal government thinks is best.for them.

Interesting ideas..... However, the real problem is the corporation structure not government. Corporations have utterly corrupted our political system. You can turn everything back over to the states and corporations will continue to corrupt the state governments and continue taking away freedom from the people. Corporations need to have their charters revised and our economic system should be reformed, otherwise the corruption will simply continue.

re: Sustainability Communities Initiative Programs

People of america to work more for themselves and less for the government. You do this by cutting the federal government back down to a reasonable size, turning the power back over to the people and the states. This will fix all of the problems the U.S. is currently facing by allowing localities to do what is best for them not what the federal government thinks is best.for them.

Interesting ideas..... However, the real problem is the corporation structure not government. Corporations have utterly corrupted our political system. You can turn everything back over to the states and corporations will continue to corrupt the state governments and continue taking away freedom from the people. Corporations need to have their charters revised and our economic system should be reformed, otherwise the corruption will simply continue.

I knew some one would bring up corporate charters (business license). Who issues business licenses the state or the federal government?

Once the states have control over themselves and the federal government is under control again the city/state can set any rules for the corporate charter business license it deems appropriate. This would not end all corporate rights but it would allow states to close business that broke laws if the state choose to. The whole made up corporate personhood crap could have been avioded by not letting the federal government get envolved where it did not belong.

All of americas problem all go back to the federal government not following the constitution. To include the supreme court interpeting the constitution a power it does not have.

Corporations will still try to corrupt the process but it is easier yo keep a local politican under control than a national one.

re: Sustainability Communities Initiative Programs

by Brookesmith

Aug. 15, 2012 1:24 pm

To the radical leftists and the community organizer, the suburban racists deserve to have their wealth taken away from them and given to the less fortunate but Obama can't publicly proclaim the details of these regulations to abolish the suburbs because, much of Obama's base, to say nothing of independents, would be alienated by this regionalist agenda; that explains the president's reticence. Openness about his antisuburban goals would expose Obama as standing to the left of many of his supporters. Middle-class African Americans and modestly successful suburbanites now disposed to vote for the president might think twice if they knew what Obama had in store for them. That is why Obama needs to be exposed for the antiAmerican community organizer he is and his leftist plans for destroying middle America. This is his sinister second term agendas and if the sheeple re-elect this sorry ass wanna be dictator, he will be virtually unstoppable. Wake up people. This is not good! I hope the good people of suburbia vote aginst thisevil threat to America en masse!

re: Sustainability Communities Initiative Programs

People of america to work more for themselves and less for the government. You do this by cutting the federal government back down to a reasonable size, turning the power back over to the people and the states. This will fix all of the problems the U.S. is currently facing by allowing localities to do what is best for them not what the federal government thinks is best.for them.

You don't honestly believe that Mitt Romney will do anything like that. Mitt Romney is going to take from the People in both suburban and urban communities and give all of that money to corporations, because "corporations are people, my friend." Corporations need to eat, too, according to Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney's only intention is to screw everyone to get himself and his business partners ahead, because that is all the business experience that he has.

Corporations are made up of people, they come together with a common goal just like unions or churches. Citizens united only allowed corporations to do the same thing unions have been doing for a hundred years.

However if we shrink the federal government back down to baby bathtub size the states can fix these issues. all of americas problem can be traced back to a over reaching federal government.

re: Sustainability Communities Initiative Programs

To the radical leftists and the community organizer, the suburban racists deserve to have their wealth taken away from them and given to the less fortunate but Obama can't publicly proclaim the details of these regulations to abolish the suburbs because, much of Obama's base, to say nothing of independents, would be alienated by this regionalist agenda; that explains the president's reticence.

What in the world are you talking about? Is this your opinion or what?

Quote Brookesmith:Openness about his antisuburban goals would expose Obama as standing to the left of many of his supporters.

What are antisuburban goals? What is "antisuburban" .... what does that mean?

Quote Brookesmith:Middle-class African Americans and modestly successful suburbanites now disposed to vote for the president might think twice if they knew what Obama had in store for them.

What is "in store for them"... what are you talking about?

Quote Brookesmith:That is why Obama needs to be exposed for the antiAmerican community organizer he is and his leftist plans for destroying middle America. This is his sinister second term agendas and if the sheeple re-elect this sorry ass wanna be dictator, he will be virtually unstoppable. Wake up people. This is not good! I hope the good people of suburbia vote aginst this evil threat to America en masse!

What agendas? What evil plans does he have in store. Where are you getting your information?

re: Sustainability Communities Initiative Programs

People of america to work more for themselves and less for the government. You do this by cutting the federal government back down to a reasonable size, turning the power back over to the people and the states. This will fix all of the problems the U.S. is currently facing by allowing localities to do what is best for them not what the federal government thinks is best.for them.

Interesting ideas..... However, the real problem is the corporation structure not government. Corporations have utterly corrupted our political system. You can turn everything back over to the states and corporations will continue to corrupt the state governments and continue taking away freedom from the people. Corporations need to have their charters revised and our economic system should be reformed, otherwise the corruption will simply continue.

I knew some one would bring up corporate charters (business license). Who issues business licenses the state or the federal government? Once the states have control over themselves and the federal government is under control again the city/state can set any rules for the corporate charter business license it deems appropriate. This would not end all corporate rights but it would allow states to close business that broke laws if the state choose to. The whole made up corporate personhood crap could have been avioded by not letting the federal government get envolved where it did not belong. All of americas problem all go back to the federal government not following the constitution. To include the supreme court interpeting the constitution a power it does not have. Corporations will still try to corrupt the process but it is easier yo keep a local politican under control than a national one.

What's the difference between a national government making and enforcing the rules or a state government doing the same thing? I'll tell you what the difference is. A small government is much easier to buy off and control than a large national one. State governments will then be picking and choosing winners on a scale never seen before by the national government. State's will fight over corporation A and states will screw over public and private workers. They'll tell you if you don't like it you can move to Montana. It's already being done to a certain extent and it would only get worse. Easier to keep a local politician under control my arse. It's much easier to buy off small local government officials than it is in a national government.

re: Sustainability Communities Initiative Programs

by drc2

Aug. 15, 2012 2:59 pm

Unbelievable twaddle from bossman and Brookie. Corruption will disappear when we go local and get the evil federal government out of the way. Power will just lay down and die before the new small government order.

Or is it the belief in the CEO instead of the Community Organizer as the model for political leadership? I vastly prefer the latter to the collection of sociopaths we find under that title. I prefer Obama's career path and experience with real people to Trust Fund KenDoll Romney. Romney's choices of what to do with his legacy are so miserable that he ought to be dismissed as another stuck up son of privilege, but not as anyone we would want making decisions about our lives.

I get a similar feeling about the Prom King and work out freak. Ryan and Romney share the media images of "candidates" and "success," but neither has done anything of substance to command that public respect. We can agree that Obama began with very little more in the resume unless one was looking for an upstart outsider, which he is only the first half of. Or, like Carter, he relied too much on DC insiders and an agenda of bipartisan reconciliation.

Giving Obama another four years is an easy choice despite the Geitner/Summers/Ruben and Rahm. Romney has Cheney's 'advisors.' I can hear Darth breathing inside the Ken Doll, and Ryan is far more about glory than austerity for himself. He will ride the Deficit Hawk until it bites him for betrayal. He is all image, and the purported substance is sophomoric scholasticism and salesmanship.

He does have the actor/salesman skill of making you think he knows what he is talking about rather than just reciting the lines a la Romney who cannot act a lick. His dramatics and passions are so faked and forced they only "fool" those who could believe that Bush was an intellectual.

re: Sustainability Communities Initiative Programs

I knew some one would bring up corporate charters (business license). Who issues business licenses the state or the federal government?

States issue corporate charters. A corporate charter is NOT a business license. You can operate a business in most state without a corporate charter.

corporate charter or business license they are they same thing. You have to have a business license in order to do business in every state. If the state was in control the state can deny a license without being sued for discrimination.

With state in charge they can revoke business license if the corporation breaks the law, they can limit the amount og property the company owns.

re: Sustainability Communities Initiative Programs

People of america to work more for themselves and less for the government. You do this by cutting the federal government back down to a reasonable size, turning the power back over to the people and the states. This will fix all of the problems the U.S. is currently facing by allowing localities to do what is best for them not what the federal government thinks is best.for them.

Interesting ideas..... However, the real problem is the corporation structure not government. Corporations have utterly corrupted our political system. You can turn everything back over to the states and corporations will continue to corrupt the state governments and continue taking away freedom from the people. Corporations need to have their charters revised and our economic system should be reformed, otherwise the corruption will simply continue.

I knew some one would bring up corporate charters (business license). Who issues business licenses the state or the federal government? Once the states have control over themselves and the federal government is under control again the city/state can set any rules for the corporate charter business license it deems appropriate. This would not end all corporate rights but it would allow states to close business that broke laws if the state choose to. The whole made up corporate personhood crap could have been avioded by not letting the federal government get envolved where it did not belong. All of americas problem all go back to the federal government not following the constitution. To include the supreme court interpeting the constitution a power it does not have. Corporations will still try to corrupt the process but it is easier yo keep a local politican under control than a national one.

What's the difference between a national government making and enforcing the rules or a state government doing the same thing? I'll tell you what the difference is. A small government is much easier to buy off and control than a large national one. State governments will then be picking and choosing winners on a scale never seen before by the national government. State's will fight over corporation A and states will screw over public and private workers. They'll tell you if you don't like it you can move to Montana. It's already being done to a certain extent and it would only get worse. Easier to keep a local politician under control my arse. It's much easier to buy off small local government officials than it is in a national government.

The state city.government is easiee to control because of access to the elected offical. I run into my city councilman at the grocery store st least every two weeks. I know where my state.representative lives. He has a policy that if his porch light is on he is home and willing to talk. When was you federal rep even in the state? When did you speak to him directly.face to face?

re: Sustainability Communities Initiative Programs

I knew some one would bring up corporate charters (business license). Who issues business licenses the state or the federal government?

States issue corporate charters. A corporate charter is NOT a business license. You can operate a business in most state without a corporate charter.

corporate charter or business license they are they same thing. You have to have a business license in order to do business in every state. If the state was in control the state can deny a license without being sued for discrimination. With state in charge they can revoke business license if the corporation breaks the law, they can limit the amount og property the company owns.

WRONG .... I operated a business in Texas for 20 years without a business license. At one point I incorporated my business and therefore had a corporate charter. Sorry, you're wrong on this.

re: Sustainability Communities Initiative Programs

by Brookesmith

Aug. 15, 2012 4:49 pm

drc2 apparently agrees with the community organizer. It is ok to take (steal) from people who have mostly worked hard, paid their taxes and made a better life for themselvs and families in suburbia. Now, here comes the community organizer in charge , along with his paid lackies and worshippers woth a plan to tax and regulate them back to the inner city ghettos. Why because that is the way he has been indoctrinated by his socialist mentors. High taxes, regulation (envirinmental, developemental) money wasting mass transit, the literal choking of of life in suburbia and bringing it back together with inner city blithe.

"Obama’s plans to undercut the political and economic independence of America’s suburbs reach back decades. The community organizers who trained him in the mid-1980s blamed the plight of cities on taxpayer “flight” to suburbia. Beginning in the mid-1990s, Obama’s mentors at the Gamaliel Foundation (a community-organizing network Obama helped found) formally dedicated their efforts to the budding fight against suburban “sprawl.” From his positions on the boards of a couple of left-leaning Chicago foundations, Obama channeled substantial financial support to these efforts. On entering politics, he served as a dedicated ally of his mentors’ anti-suburban activism."

re: Sustainability Communities Initiative Programs

I knew some one would bring up corporate charters (business license). Who issues business licenses the state or the federal government?

States issue corporate charters. A corporate charter is NOT a business license. You can operate a business in most state without a corporate charter.

corporate charter or business license they are they same thing. You have to have a business license in order to do business in every state. If the state was in control the state can deny a license without being sued for discrimination. With state in charge they can revoke business license if the corporation breaks the law, they can limit the amount og property the company owns.

WRONG .... I operated a business in Texas for 20 years without a business license. At one point I incorporated my business and therefore had a corporate charter. Sorry, you're wrong on this.

In all the states that I have had a business I needed a business license that I had to renew every year. If the state wanted to pull it they could leaving me breaking the law if I continued to operate my business. I do not have my own business any more the government made it to much of a pain in the ass to continue.

re: Sustainability Communities Initiative Programs

In all the states that I have had a business I needed a business license that I had to renew every year. If the state wanted to pull it they could leaving breaking the law if I continued to operate my business. I do not have my own business any more the government made it to much of a pain in the ass to continue.

Not all state require a license therefore your premise is flawed and your WRONG again.

Too bad you had such a hard time with the mean old nasty government..... let me get my violin out!

re: Sustainability Communities Initiative Programs

In all the states that I have had a business I needed a business license that I had to renew every year. If the state wanted to pull it they could leaving breaking the law if I continued to operate my business. I do not have my own business any more the government made it to much of a pain in the ass to continue.

Not all state require a license therefore your premise is flawed and your WRONG again.

Too bad you had such a hard time with the mean old nasty government..... let me get my violin out!

So maybe we should disband the states and let the federal government run our lives. If the state does not require a business license that is up to them as a state.

They hope to achieve this basic change in America by expanding cities into regions that will all come under the control of the nearest cities. Obama and his allies consider everything about the suburbs to be bad. That’s where the money has fled. That’s where the SUV’s and autos pollute the environment. That’s where valuable farmland and forests are absorbed to build more urban sprawl. The suburbanites need to be dragged back into the cities and their love affair with the car crushed.

This doesn't make any sense. If President Obama believes that "suburbs are where valuable farmland and forests are absorbed to build more urban sprawl", then why would President Obama want to "expand cities into regions that will come under the control of the nearest cities"? Wouldn't expanding cities just eat up more farmland and forests? Why would President Obama be trying to "drag suburbanites back into cities" if he's going to expand the cities to cover the suburbs?

Nothing at that link offers any explanation as to how they came to these wild conclusions. As for the "checklist" of Obama's fascist tactics, you should be reminded of the Project for a New American Century and the fact that the majority of the corporate/fascist tactics afforded to the Office of the President were passed with exuberant cheers from the Right during the post-9/11 Bush administration.

re: Sustainability Communities Initiative Programs

by Brookesmith

Aug. 16, 2012 6:33 am

Jan, not trying to sell a book. Thought you might at least read the article and learn something. My bad, I should have realized that you(like others here) are if the mindset that if it doesn't fit the moonbat meme and mantra it is either a lie or not worth consideration because to consider it might enlighten you on something and then you would have to confront your misguided value system.

re: Sustainability Communities Initiative Programs

Jan, not trying to sell a book. Thought you might at least read the article and learn something. My bad, I should have realized that you(like others here) are if the mindset that if it doesn't fit the moonbat meme and mantra it is either a lie or not worth consideration because to consider it might enlighten you on something and then you would have to confront your misguided value system.

Speaking of moonbats.....who in their right mind would believe anything that moron says other than a like minded moonbat? Some of the shit you people will believe is amazing.....Calling you gullible would be a compliment. Why do you people really troll this website with your nonsense?

BTW....If you're interested in learning something of value you came to the right website. If you want your ass handed to you on a regular basis, well you came to the right website for that as well.

re: Sustainability Communities Initiative Programs

Probably instead of re-vitalizing our inner-cities, we should just set fire to them. It's cheaper. A match costs less than a penney.

The displaced inner-city dwellers can set up tents on the lawns of suburbia. When the suburbanites flee and establish new suburbs, decent housing, proper school buildings and the like will again be available...and the tents can be done away with.

Not a penney in taxes to pay for any of it. The $650 trillion in global derivative bets needn't be touched.

In reality, wealth re-distribution merely takes money withdrawn from the economy and thrown into financial paper, and places it back into the economy so that it can function. It's done with taxation. It maintains Say's Law which in a nutshell states that everything that is produced within an economy can be bought...unless financial extractions from the economy prevent it.

I often hear the phrase, "I know better what to do with my money than government does". Often, that's true...so some government taxation to channel wealth back into the economy should probably be in the form of checks to its citizens...through a guaranteed minimal income. Households know what they need. Government doesn't. Some things governments knows, and households don't...like what new flu vaccine has to be developed. The Center for Disease Control keeps tabs on things like that. Households don't. It's a balancing act.

Adhering to a basic law of economics, Say's Law, used to be preferred over periodic meltdowns. Now meltdowns are the policy of choice.There are many ways to adhere to Say's Law under our system, and they all involve wealth re-distribution and/or caps on incomes through taxation. Most suburbanites aren't involved in that, unless, of course, they are in the habit of receiving billion dollar bonuses or multi-million dollar compensation packages.

The alternative is always a national or international economic meltdown. Probably World War III isn't an option to get the globe out of this one.

Retired Monk - 'Ideology is a disease"

A national sales tax, or a VAT, and straight up pay out a national dividend.

re: Sustainability Communities Initiative Programs

by Brookesmith

Aug. 16, 2012 7:02 am

The community organizer's Sustainability Communities Initiative is not just another federal stimulas program. It is coordinated federal overreach, mass-scale wealth redistribution and social re-engineering Orwellian style.

The former Soviet Union had a similar concept; they called it “communal living”. Each person was assigned a number of square meters, and rooms were distributed (sometimes within an apartment itself) by the municipal authorities, with no choice of location by the tenant. Housing projects (also known as “workforce housing”) were built near the factories and work centers, and people walked or biked to work or anywhere else they needed to go; only the wealthy or well-connected owned an automobile.

This is nothing but the community organizer in chief, and his army of community organizers, injecting their global ideology on us – at the local level – in our home towns. They have been planning it for years. Obama knows it can only be implemented in a second lame duck term.

re: Sustainability Communities Initiative Programs

The community organizer's ........ community organizer in chief, and his army of community organizers, .........

Do you actually think that repeating the "community organizer" line makes ANY impact on this blog? If you do then you are very very confused and mistaken. To you that's a dirty word, but it's not scary to any reasonable open minded person who actually understand what it means.

Just because those words tastes like vinegar to you doesn't mean it's not wine to many of us. Take your little troll self back to your Land of Scary Guy in the White House world, we're not buying what you're putting out.

In a reciprocal system, surpluses are exchanged for surpluses. A surplus of apples beyond one's own use are exchanged for surpluses of oranges, chairs or cheese produced by another. There is no extraction of value from the exchanges. No "mark-up" we call profit. Wealth remains somewhat equalized. 100 hours work = 100 hours work. Markets of equals. Reciprocal.

The reciprocal, no profit system had this effect:: 100 hours of labor producing apples = 100 hours of labor producing oranges, chairs and cheese, etc. Everything can be exchanged.

Profit has this effect: 100 hours of labor producing apples are given claims on 50 hours of labor producing oranges, chairs and cheese. Claims on the rest are re-channeled into finance/capitalists. Everything can't be exchanged.

Wealth is re-distributed upwards. Over time, such economies become unstable, begin collapsing and the social structure begins breaking apart. Regulation to handle the excesses (as in the Great Depression) is required in order to maintain them.In reciprocal market systems, that doesn't happen.

Capitalism is simply producing surpluses in exchange for other surpluses. Surpluses are capital. How those surpluses are distributed are always socially engineered. Reciprocal free market systems were violently overthrown and regulated out of existence for the current one. The current system has never been a free market system.

re: Sustainability Communities Initiative Programs

by Brookesmith

Aug. 16, 2012 8:40 am

I started this thread, Jan. So if YOU don't like it, don't respond. Because you have offered nothing but criticism and nothing of any substance to this thread except to expose your blind acceptance of the community organizer without question. You cannot argue any issues I have raised here, or even defend your position because I doubt you even fullly understand what it is you think the community organizer really represents.

re: Sustainability Communities Initiative Programs

by drc2

Aug. 16, 2012 8:56 am

Your sneering reference to community organizing exposes the ugly and empty theme of this thread. We are supposed to be shocked by the idea that modern America has urban neglect and suburbs that are socially disfunctional. We could always just bulldoze the crap construction in the suburbs and see if we could design human communities with sidewalks and places people gather instead of individualized automobile launchpads for going encapusulated to commercial destinations. We might try a social justice approach to urban renewal instead of the neo-apartheid of gentrification.

Community organizers bring elements of the community together and facilitate the conversations that allow them to find the common points of interest and their genuine human bonds. That is the "organizing" part. What community organizers cannot do is impose their ideologies and plans on disciples who have a cultic devotion to their leaders and a mindless obedience in their "work." That is more like Corporate or the Religious Right.

I don't know where you got this animus or misguided opinion of people who do useful work. I know that there has been a load of Hannityscare about the idea and that it does dogwhistle work for both race and "Marxism." The Gospel of Community Organizing, Alinsky's "RULES FOR RADICALS" is used by conservative organizers because it is an objective practical guide to how to organize. Alinsky did use real and just anger and did point it toward the real enemies. Others may use his techniques to exploit real and just anger by pointing it toward false enemies and scares, and that is what I see on the Right and in your pathetic posts.

You make me wish Obama and the Left were that powerful and ruthless so we could get rid of this Corporate Imperial Horror Show ASAP, but I am afraid the problem is the reverse.

re: Sustainability Communities Initiative Programs

I started this thread, Jan. So if YOU don't like it, don't respond. Because you have offered nothing but criticism and nothing of any substance to this thread except to expose your blind acceptance of the community organizer without question. You cannot argue any issues I have raised here, or even defend your position because I doubt you even fullly understand what it is you think the community organizer really represents.

Gee, guess I hit a nerve.

Actually I do understand what you've been saying. I simply do not agree with you and find your remarks, especially the "community organizer" comments, silly. You have not proven that the President has any of the goals you've stated, you are only talking smoke and mirrors. For me to argue with you, you need to prove your premise, which you haven't done.

re: Sustainability Communities Initiative Programs

Your sneering reference to community organizing exposes the ugly and empty theme of this thread. We are supposed to be shocked by the idea that modern America has urban neglect and suburbs that are socially disfunctional. We could always just bulldoze the crap construction in the suburbs and see if we could design human communities with sidewalks and places people gather instead of individualized automobile launchpads for going encapusulated to commercial destinations. We might try a social justice approach to urban renewal instead of the neo-apartheid of gentrification.

Community organizers bring elements of the community together and facilitate the conversations that allow them to find the common points of interest and their genuine human bonds. That is the "organizing" part. What community organizers cannot do is impose their ideologies and plans on disciples who have a cultic devotion to their leaders and a mindless obedience in their "work." That is more like Corporate or the Religious Right.

I don't know where you got this animus or misguided opinion of people who do useful work. I know that there has been a load of Hannityscare about the idea and that it does dogwhistle work for both race and "Marxism." The Gospel of Community Organizing, Alinsky's "RULES FOR RADICALS" is used by conservative organizers because it is an objective practical guide to how to organize. Alinsky did use real and just anger and did point it toward the real enemies. Others may use his techniques to exploit real and just anger by pointing it toward false enemies and scares, and that is what I see on the Right and in your pathetic posts.

You make me wish Obama and the Left were that powerful and ruthless so we could get rid of this Corporate Imperial Horror Show ASAP, but I am afraid the problem is the reverse.

re: Sustainability Communities Initiative Programs

Probably instead of re-vitalizing our inner-cities, we should just set fire to them. It's cheaper. A match costs less than a penney.

The displaced inner-city dwellers can set up tents on the lawns of suburbia. When the suburbanites flee and establish new suburbs, decent housing, proper school buildings and the like will again be available...and the tents can be done away with.

Not a penney in taxes to pay for any of it. The $650 trillion in global derivative bets needn't be touched.

In reality, wealth re-distribution merely takes money withdrawn from the economy and thrown into financial paper, and places it back into the economy so that it can function. It's done with taxation. It maintains Say's Law which in a nutshell states that everything that is produced within an economy can be bought...unless financial extractions from the economy prevent it.

I often hear the phrase, "I know better what to do with my money than government does". Often, that's true...so some government taxation to channel wealth back into the economy should probably be in the form of checks to its citizens...through a guaranteed minimal income. Households know what they need. Government doesn't. Some things governments knows, and households don't...like what new flu vaccine has to be developed. The Center for Disease Control keeps tabs on things like that. Households don't. It's a balancing act.

Adhering to a basic law of economics, Say's Law, used to be preferred over periodic meltdowns. Now meltdowns are the policy of choice.There are many ways to adhere to Say's Law under our system, and they all involve wealth re-distribution and/or caps on incomes through taxation. Most suburbanites aren't involved in that, unless, of course, they are in the habit of receiving billion dollar bonuses or multi-million dollar compensation packages.

The alternative is always a national or international economic meltdown. Probably World War III isn't an option to get the globe out of this one.

Retired Monk - 'Ideology is a disease"

WorkingMan replied: If I remember correctly say's law states that products are purchased with other products. So in order to keep the business or household running you have to immediately spend every dime you make on more products. This will keep the economy going only allowing it to crash when people save money. Than the system will crash prices will fall and people will start purchasing products again.

That being said all pensions, retirement accounts and social programs like SSI are bad and must be spent immediately on goods and services.

poly replies: True and not true at the same time. Products are used to purchase other products...with money as the intermediary. Under ideal conditions, money saved by one is borrowed and put back into the economy by another. to purchase a product be it a new TV or a brick to build another factory

.Under our market system, it's an absolute requirement that all money be spent back into the economy on products/services...or over time . the whole thing comes tumbling down. . However, under reciprocal marketing systems (replaced by the current one) , that isn't the case. There is never a surplus capital to withdraw as profit because surpluses are always distributed (as TV's or as bricks to build a new productive facility. Say's Law remains in equalibrium.

I don't see how reciprocal systems could work in an industrialized society (outside of local levels) AND the current system always moves towards economic and social collapse. The need to avoid that is the necessity for much of our regulation...like min. wage laws.

To the extent Say's Law is kept in equalibrium, societies prosper. To the extent they violate it, they dont. The Soviet's violated it in their way; we're violating it in ours. Results are always the same. Splat!

re: Sustainability Communities Initiative Programs

To the radical leftists and the community organizer, the suburban racists deserve to have their wealth taken away from them and given to the less fortunate but Obama can't publicly proclaim the details of these regulations to abolish the suburbs because, much of Obama's base, to say nothing of independents, would be alienated by this regionalist agenda; that explains the president's reticence.

What in the world are you talking about? Is this your opinion or what?

Quote Brookesmith:Openness about his antisuburban goals would expose Obama as standing to the left of many of his supporters.

What are antisuburban goals? What is "antisuburban" .... what does that mean?

Quote Brookesmith:Middle-class African Americans and modestly successful suburbanites now disposed to vote for the president might think twice if they knew what Obama had in store for them.

What is "in store for them"... what are you talking about?

Quote Brookesmith:That is why Obama needs to be exposed for the antiAmerican community organizer he is and his leftist plans for destroying middle America. This is his sinister second term agendas and if the sheeple re-elect this sorry ass wanna be dictator, he will be virtually unstoppable. Wake up people. This is not good! I hope the good people of suburbia vote aginst this evil threat to America en masse!

What agendas? What evil plans does he have in store. Where are you getting your information?

Right. You understand nothing. What you do is agree with what one here has dubbed the clan. The collection of moonbats that worship anything collectivist, communitarian, socialist, leftist, progressiveness with unquestioning loyalties to the community organizer in chief and his agenda of wealth redistribution and social restructuring I disagree with that vehemently and as, he is the one in power right now is the reason for my rant against the community organizer. But do you see the bigger picture.

The reality is now and has been for sometime an individual vs corporate debate. The individual is losing because corporations own and control government. Consider the following:

Most of the regulations that govern energy and the banking sector were written by the industries (corporations) they were designed to regulate. The biggest influence on legislative votes is corporate lobbying. PAC and campaign finance by Corporations has supplanted individual donations to elections. The individuals’ right to seek redress in court has been under attack for decades, limiting their options. DRM and content protection undercuts the individual’s ability to purchase and use content as they see fit. Patent protections are continually weakened. Deep pocketed corporations can usurp inventions almost at will. The SCOTUS has ruled that corporations have free speech rights as do individual persons. (So much for original intent!)

None of these are left/right partisan conflicts, but rather, are corporate vs individual issues. Corporations use government to pit the rich man against the middleman with the poor man in the middle.

It is the same with the so-called settled science on AGW. If it has been proven and is settled, then why not stop wasting billions on phony climate research and go ahead and declare war on the culprits and go after them? Clue- It is because of who the "culprits" are. Who are the winners in the war on drugs? the war on terror? the war on poverty? Clue-It is not the individual.

The smallest minority is the individual and governments main priority should be to guarantee and protect an individual's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The individual is losing. The community organizer is continuing the corporate agenda under a different label than the so-called evil corporate job killing raider is hiding under. The truth is they are both hiding under the same bush (HA!) while they distract the sheeple with l/r issues to hide the real agenda.

re: Sustainability Communities Initiative Programs

If you would stop ranting and aimlessly calling names and simply state your case then just maybe you would get a better response from me for one and others on the blog. Freaking out only makes you look stupid.

All but a very few politicians are on the corporate dole, we all know that. You aren't telling any of us anything new. Progressives are very aware of what's going on. Where you and I probably differ, if I can sort through your ramblings, is that our political system isn't the real problem, it's our economic system.

Many progressives (I'm one of them) have been calling for fundament reform of our economic system for a long time. Sure the corporations have gone nuts and utterly corrputed our political system. Progressives have been shouting that from the roof tops, it's about time that the right gets on board and we get some change.

re: Sustainability Communities Initiative Programs

by polycarp2

Aug. 16, 2012 4:24 pm

Jan in Iowa wrote:

If you would stop ranting and aimlessly calling names and simply state your case then just maybe you would get a better response from me for one and others on the blog. Freaking out only makes you look stupid.

All but a very few politicians are on the corporate dole, we all know that. You aren't telling any of us anything new. Progressives are very aware of what's going on. Where you and I probably differ, if I can sort through your ramblings, is that our political system isn't the real problem, it's our economic system.

Many progressives (I'm one of them) have been calling for fundament reform of our economic system for a long time. Sure the corporations have gone nuts and utterly corrputed our political system. Progressives have been shouting that from the roof tops, it's about time that the right gets on board and we get some change.

So take a deep breath and stop ranting and name calling, please!

poly replies: Applause, applause! However, the righties can't get on board. The re-capture of democracy from corporate/financial interests would bring economic change with it.

Poll after poll has shown Americans want universal health care, better wealth distribution, more of the tax burden placed upon those who can afford it, and less placed upon those who can't, etc. A responsive democracy would institute change. A corporatocracy won't.

Righties may complain about corporate/finance control of government...but to challenge it seriously would bring down their own ideology of how government should function and what its purpose is.

re: Sustainability Communities Initiative Programs

re: Sustainability Communities Initiative Programs

by Kerry

Aug. 18, 2012 10:34 am

Ah, methinks that you have complained too much, Brookesmith--and the politically correct see a racial motive in your claims.

And, I don't think that Obama could get by with 'taking away from the suburbs' to 'give to the inner cities' without some very strong (and appropriate) opposition--and, perhaps the claim, itself (just like where Obama was born), is a distraction to the real political problems at hand.

But, I do agree with one perspective brought out--'The rich man is using the poor man against the middle man'. I think that is a real point here--claiming racial issues just distracts from that....